The Young Schema Questionnaire in Group Therapy: A Client-Focused Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY The purpose of this research was to determine the most common schemas of clients presenting for group therapy and to evaluate how these schemas change after treatment. Schemas are defined as pervasive themes about oneself, others, and expectations in relationships, which begin to develop in childhood and continue throughout one's lifetime. The research was done in a 6-week mental health day treatment program servicing clients discharged from an inpatient psychiatric unit or the emergency crisis clinic. Clients completed the Young Schema Questionnaire during the assessment phase of the program and again upon discharge. Clients were given immediate feedback on their specific schemas, followed by a discussion about how the schemas fit with their current situation and treatment goals. During treatment, clients were encouraged to reflect upon and discuss their identified schemas. The most common schemas in our setting are presented, as well as a rationale for why schemas decreased over the course of treatment. The implications of using the schema questionnaire to facilitate clients' progress in the course of treatment and for program evaluation is addressed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".